I think i have predicted world war 3

[rsh01]

Hi, can you keep your dreams to yourself next time? Thanks.

 

[dotcom]

err...yes? This be a reason people would go to war for, therefore they should attack?




Another quality thread only on t2w

Peter

There is a big difference between people considering war and actually implying to do it. Therefor the question "should we" and "is this" are different from each other. Should we has no consideration, it is partially a sure decision. Is this a reason implies to look and investigate all possible reasons, benefits and results of one. TO say should we is narrowing the question, its an intra-decision.

I was not insulting the man (not that i said that you were accusing me of so, but your sarcastic emoticon and comment of this thread gives the impression that it is) I was only stating that, he is not thinking the question completely through or he is trying to make a point regarding something absolutely irrelevant to the simple question.


With all do respect Wacky pete. Thank you for your answer.

 

[pboyles]

I suggest we all just watch Fox News, they provide much simpler answers to these complicated questions.

 

[rsh01]

This is only theory and it came to me in a dream. There are certain things that have to happen in order for the war to occur.Put simply, i don't know how much of china owns parts of the US, although im sure the traders who know whats going on, that US is pretty much ****ed in 2016 and our currency has no other choice bu to owned by china.


But check this out.......

(now this is only being considered if a one world government doesn't occur, however this may be the cause of a one world government...hopefully)
10, 20 or even 30 years later. There can be a revolution within america and its people. "We want our land back" and china wont sell it to us . I think the rest is a bit obvious. SO we are going to take it.

Now i don't know how this works globally, i have yet been educated in one country owning parts of another countries land and refusing to give it back and how much that country needs to own in order to create such an impact on people. but a country refusing to give one countries land back will **** some people off. So it only makes sense for that country to send its people their to protect and if not, then that country can just bomb the **** out of it (as im sure china is that ballsy) and there you have your war, Im sure some parts of Korea will help us in bombing china, Russia would definitely be against us and we would most likely use Mexico and Canada as our playing fields.




here are some other things
the US military would have to sign a contract tready or merge with the Chinese army or the idea would come up and produce some outrage. I doubt this would actually happen.

China would build parts of the US in their own image. This seems very plausible.



what do you think?

Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I had a dream, and no one can interpret it. But I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it."

get joseph to interpret it and i will listen

 

[forever_young]

Don't know about the war... And definitely don't know about China owning parts of US, but dotcom, don't you think that the whole economics ****, where America is now, that's all is not because of China, but because of stupid politic solution and the whole economic crisis started years ago? Why don't you think, that Americans must be better reliable and thinking of a new president and his steps in economics? I suppose that the whole yours post is just a joke, but in each joke there is some truth)

And why why the world war 3 must begin because of US problems?

 

[Splitlink]

As I mentioned earlier. Leaders will start a war to take the nation's mind off internal problems and as a way of creating employment through rearmament. But only if they think that they can win it.

The Chinese are claiming islands from Japan at this time. Argentina was prepared to go to war over the Falklands. So, yes, dotcom, I believe the US capable of having a war with any other country, if they could get away with it. So would we, so would anyone. History proves it and human nature does not change. The US/Spanish war was started by the "Maine" sinking. There is a lot of doubt about which country sunk her but it cost Spain Cuba and the Phillipines.

 

[trendie]

.....

And why why the world war 3 must begin because of US problems?

The US were latecomers to the last two world wars, and they are probably making up for it by ensuring they are right there at the start of the next one.

 

[ordinaryguy76]

Well, yes, you are right

Hitler's war came out of recession, however. It was not his reason--that was world domination for Germany, but he used a depressed Germany to get his armament factories working again and build up his armies. The British and US were, also, in the worst depressions, ever. I don't thing that religion came into it, then, and although the jews came in for a terrible time it was racial rather than religious.

Bear in mind that there was very strong economic / philosophical thought behind Hitler. Next to "Untermenschen", read about "Grossraumwirtschaft" that appeared in Germany, I believe in 19th century. This theory says that in order to be self-sufficient, a country has to be quite big in terms of land. Eastern Europe was to be used as farming grounds as opposed to manufacturing in the West, all within the Great Reich. Self-sufficiency (Autarkie) was the initial goal, not world domination. Also, Hitler and Nazis were VERY economical about their slaves, for example, apart from using their energy for work, they used their hair and fat (I'll spare you the details).

 

[forever_young]

The US were latecomers to the last two world wars, and they are probably making up for it by ensuring they are right there at the start of the next one.

Yeah, "Punctuality is the politeness of princes".
See ya soon, US))

 

[Splitlink]

Bear in mind that there was very strong economic / philosophical thought behind Hitler. Next to "Untermenschen", read about "Grossraumwirtschaft" that appeared in Germany, I believe in 19th century. This theory says that in order to be self-sufficient, a country has to be quite big in terms of land. Eastern Europe was to be used as farming grounds as opposed to manufacturing in the West, all within the Great Reich. Self-sufficiency (Autarkie) was the initial goal, not world domination. Also, Hitler and Nazis were VERY economical about their slaves, for example, apart from using their energy for work, they used their hair and fat (I'll spare you the details).

I lived in those times and you may be right about the initial dreams. Hitler and his followers came out of WW1 with that idea, I'm sure, but he used the economic crisis of the twenties and thirties to stir up discontent against jews, gypsies and all minorities (all of whom had the money, according to the Nazis) to start an eventual war. In addition, Russia, being communist , was in his sights from the start. In fact, he hated them so much that could not wait to finish us off before he started on them, which was one of the key factors of Germany losing the war.

Human nature never changes and, today, there are those in other countries, who would do the same becuse that is the best way to divert public thought away from what is happening at home.

 

[splashy]

I'm convinced!
I'm shorting TUI, Capital shopping centres and ITV. I also think the healthcare lottery might suffer. I'm going long BAE, Rexam (rat population will boom) and Tesco (they'll exploit weaknesses and end up controlling the world eventually regardless of who wins the war...)

 

[irishneil]

lol